How is a schema of semantic elements not semantic, not to mention less klugish than microformats. I understand the reason for microformats, and use them, but they could have been in the form of public xhtml schemata had IE supported xhtml. The same reasoning is valid vis à vis many of html5’s new elements.
Please elucidate your position, Tommy, as I live too far south to have experience with cross-eyed badgers, spitting or otherwise.
cheers,
gary
Gary, now you’re talking cross-eyed badger’s spit!
One word: semantics.
Microsoft have a demo XHTML page to showcase their XHTML support in IE9 at http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/HTML5/25HTML5_T--Shirt_Designer/Default.xhtml
Once IE8 use falls low enough XHTML will become a practical alternative. That should happen long before HTML5 is finished.
actually i have: the one in question, here.
and my whole point revolves around these excerpts:
The HTML 4.01 specification includes additional
syntactic constraints that cannot be expressed within
the DTDs.
which a developer should account for before putting a DTD on it’s code.
This is HTML 4.01 Strict DTD, which excludes the presentation
attributes and elements that W3C expects to phase out as
support for style sheets matures. Authors should use the Strict
DTD when possible, but may use the Transitional DTD when support
for presentation attribute and elements is required.
today, while still using html 4.01 DTD, presentational structures that employ the use of empty divs or spans, like certain rounded corners or image replacement techniques
expects to phase out as
support for style sheets matures.
and, as such,
Authors should use the Strict
DTD when possible, but may use the Transitional DTD when support
for presentation attribute and elements is required.
which i believe should be “updated” (as in a way of thinking, modern days coding extrapolation, not actual modifications in DTDs or specs) like this:
[…] when support
for presentation attribute and elements and presentation element structures is required
let’s take, for example, other languages… like human languages.
now, semantic is delivered by using certain language elements: verbs, nouns, adjectives, using certain rules. and this doesn’t restrict one’s vocabulary not a single bit, you can always add new words to it.
xhtml, on the other hand, it’s not doing that at all, with it’s extensibility: you can use new constructs, like <city>, but where is the generally accepted definition that classify it’s use and it’s place in the language? having none of those, it lacks semantics.
but in html, you can always build any number of new “words” by using any combination of the existing elements, words that will have semantic written all over them.
going further with the analogy between human languages and xhtml, if we were to open the dam, and permit everyone to use constructs that only he/she&family co. can understand and decipher, semantic would become obsolete. but, then, it will only make thing worse, because, as it is,
Le langage est source de malentendus. (Language is the source of misunderstandings.)
Antoine de Saint Exupéry - Le Petit Prince (1943) (The Little Prince)
the world would be full of dialects, like in the times when tribes were the most advanced human social structures, and no google translate could ever help us understand one another.
@gary.turner: 
I wish I’d seen that back in early 2004 when I was starting to work with xhtml. In June of that year, I had a small demo on my then site. I moved the archived page to my present site a few minutes ago.
It’s a damned shame MSFT has seen fit to not support xhtml. Were it supported, we’d not need that microformatting hackish work-around or half of html5.
cheers,
gary
I have no idea what my site or its coding have to do with this discussion, but I will humor you with an answer. For several years I maintained an intranet site that took full advantage of the xhtml extensibility. All my tools are configured to support xhtml syntax, and I see no compelling need to change them or my coding habits.
it appears that i didn’t care that much so far, and you were. now you’re switching sides.
I have no idea where you get that idea. You’re apparently skimming contents and picking those parts that conform to your prejudice.
i have a tone? you are indeed using the wrong approach. an educated person surely doesn’t resort to unfair, harsh, gratuitous conclusions at the end of the post, if it’s not attacking a person in order to discredit an idea. you are doing it over and over again. i don’t mind. i only pointed that out as a sign to you that the discussion has elements outside a civil one. that’s all.
As I have said already, you fail to comprehend the English language, or as above, you see what you want to see.
you assume it’s me that needs to learn. it’s possible you need to see some things in a different light? why do you need me so bad to stop arguing (and not from ignorance)? looking at one thing from all sides it’s called knowledge. i try to stay away from knowledge that is only a poem well repeated.
I recall reading of a professor who was filling in for another in a senior level course on Jewish culture. When he started out the first day by assigning several books for the course, and assigning a large amount of reading for the next class, his students protested that they thought the course would be discussion only. He replied that you can’t discuss what you don’t know, or you’re only sharing your collective ignorance.
I have seen no evidence that you have a reasonably complete understanding of the recommendations or of the doctype declaration and its functions. This incomplete knowledge base leaves your arguments appearing sophomoric at best, and otherwise trollish.
gary
noonnope, I ask if you have read through a DTD. This article shows you how to write your own DTD, which may help you some: http://csharpcomputing.com/XMLTutorial/Lesson8.htm
replace xml with html for that page.
my point is, if doctype has so little meaning, how do i hurt it when i use it as a flag for my “compromised markup”? when others (some that argue against my use) use it as a flag for their “superior markup” (like xhtml DTD when there is no reason to, other than coding rules).
i’ve let your post last. it’s always a pleasure to read your posts. they are full of delight, like AutisticCuckoo’s are full of wisdom. but enough shameless behind buss from my part.
did i said it has become something else as a fruit? it’s still an apple (html), but is fresh (strict), poisoned (frameset), or rotten (transitional). once you take out the bad parts (rotten/transitional) you have an eatable apple (strict). frameset it’s only for the bad witch
well, if doctype establishes what elements you can use, then i believe it also defines html for those writing web pages.
thanks again
the browser always does more and beyond to keep a page functional, to the very least. and it’s partly the doctype’s job to define what is and isn’t correct usage of tags, because it also says about where (in the head, in the body) and when (if the content to be wrapped is inline, or if it’s block-level). it’s not very clear on how not to use them (for some), and this is my problem (thanks again for WCAG2 ).
Yes, I do. My Amazon ads are in iframes because IE cannot embed an html document properly with the object element. Therefore the proper DTD is transitional.
and for that, your goal it’s completely useless. why use it so specifically at all, like strict, transitional and so on, if it’s only as switch.
you can, in fact, make severe errors regarding syntax, that will not be caught by the validator. such as block elements inside a <p> (see this). so your DTD declaration it’s useless, used this way. do you still use it? are you complacent in your self-imposed ignorance?
What’s your point? Who cares? The validator is a tool, but not a perfect one.
[ot]
i’ve tried to find something civil to respond to that, but i could not find anything. so i leave it to that, master gary sir.
[/ot]
From the tone of your comment and from a similar earlier comment, I shall assume you think you’ve been attacked personally, ad hominem, rather than your argument. This points to a misunderstanding on your part. If I were to say someone acted stupidly, that does not imply he is stupid, only that his actions were. If that person were to infer that it was a personal attack, it would indicate the person’s curriculum vitae has had certain holes in its education.
cheers,
gary
yes, but any particular piece of your markup justifies the xhtml DTD? you use DTD to appear educated in web technologies.
it appears that i didn’t care that much so far, and you were. now you’re switching sides.
i have a tone? you are indeed using the wrong approach. an educated person surely doesn’t resort to unfair, harsh, gratuitous conclusions at the end of the post, if it’s not attacking a person in order to discredit an idea. you are doing it over and over again. i don’t mind. i only pointed that out as a sign to you that the discussion has elements outside a civil one. that’s all.
you assume it’s me that needs to learn. it’s possible you need to see some things in a different light? why do you need me so bad to stop arguing (and not from ignorance)? looking at one thing from all sides it’s called knowledge. i try to stay away from knowledge that is only a poem well repeated.
No, this is a common misunderstanding, but the doctype declaration is really not intended for browsers at all. It’s for validators.
Browsers used to ignore the doctype declaration altogether, until Microsoft began to use it in an attempt to detect whether a document was ‘modern’ or ‘old school’: a practice now known as doctype sniffing. This was a kludge to allow them to start implementing CSS more along the W3C recommendations without breaking too many previously written documents that relied on their earlier, non-conforming implementation.
A browser supports a number of HTML element types, and doesn’t care about versions. So if the browser supports <center> that tag will work even if you have declared an HTML 4.01 Strict DTD.
The ‘span’ element cannot be considered a transitional element in any sense. To my knowledge, it was introduced in html4 and does not exist in html3.2. :shrug:
I find it hard to believe that you have remained so obdurate regarding just what the DTD is and what the specs define. The DTD is ignored by the browser except as a quirks/standards mode switch. The DTD tells the validator which set of grammar rules to use when parsing the document for errors. Why do you still insist on applying some nebulous reasoning that does not have any basis in fact?
There is a parlor game that begins with a paragraph or three in which the nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs have been left blank. The syntax, or grammar, is definitely proper English. Each player, without having seen the story, is to write down a list of nouns, verbs, &c., to fill the blanks. The player then reads the story, inserting his words in the appropriate places. To say that hilarity ensues is an understatement. The story ends up making no sense, but is still perfectly grammatical English. Would you, by your reasoning, call it French?
My point is, html4 is what it is grammatically, and it doesn’t matter whether an author makes sense or not if he follows the rules of the grammar.
Please stop arguing from self-imposed ignorance, and take a moment to learn.
gary
you need to be more open minded. after all, you still use xhtml transitional on your page. if you are stating the obvious (again) about div and span, you only put us in obduratus
and for that, your goal it’s completely useless. why use it so specifically at all, like strict, transitional and so on, if it’s only as switch.
you can, in fact, make severe errors regarding syntax, that will not be caught by the validator. such as block elements inside a <p> (see this). so your DTD declaration it’s useless, used this way. do you still use it? are you complacent in your self-imposed ignorance?
i’ve tried to find something civil to respond to that, but i could not find anything. so i leave it to that, master gary sir.
You need to remember that the doctype defines HTML for those writing web BROWSERS. It does not define how is should be used by those writing web pages. They are two different things and the doctype applies to what the browser is required to accept and not to what the web page author should be using.
As was mentioned earlier take a look at WCAG2 for more information relevant to people writing web pages.
Yes you can change meanings be using the wrong syntax (eg. by using the HTML table tag for something that isn’t tabular data) but that doesn’t mean that the table tag is invalid HTML, it means you used it wrong. The browser is required to handle table tags and so it is a part of the standard that the doctype defines that the browser needs to follow but that doesn’t mean that using the table tag around anything or everything is correct. It is not the doctype’s job to define what is and isn’t correct usage of tags, just what tags are valid and where they are valid. It has nothing to say about when they are valid.
I was going to take Stephen to task over his vocabulary/grammar discussion, but he jumped up and completely exonerated himself with this:
It is not the doctype’s job to define what is and isn’t correct usage of tags, just what tags are valid and where they are valid. It has nothing to say about when they are valid.
Fantastic summation!
cheers,
gary
what if the apple is poisoned. or rotten. do you still call it an apple?
Yes. It didn’t change to something not an apple.
Whether it’s a good one or a bad one has no bearing on what you call it.
You know, I thought apples were technically berries but they are not. Oranges, however, can be described as a berry. As can a pumpkin and a tomato, but not raspberries. Weird.